COLUMN: Rumsfeld casts doubts on U.S. war on terror
Concerns and doubts about the progress of the war on terror have been expressed often by pundits on both sides of the aisle. Yet, none within the Bush administration, let alone the Department of Defense, has so much as even acknowledged such concerns, despite indications to the contrary. That is until last week, when a memo written by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and intended for internal consumption found its way on the front page of USA Today.
In the memo, Rumsfeld questions the assumption that enough is being done to eradicate al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere and admits that stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan will be a “long, hard slog.” Even more telling, and somewhat disturbing, are his comments that raise concerns over the long-term commitment of the U.S. troops in Iraq, which, in his opinion, slows down the progress of the war on terror elsewhere. This distinction between the war on terror and the campaign in Iraq is in itself a new development given the administration’s fervent attempts to link the two together.
In addition, senior government officials, including Rumsfeld himself, have continually complained that media’s reporting of progress on the war on terror and of the war in Iraq has been bleaker and more pessimistic than facts on the ground warrant. Yet, the memo seems to betray that notion and gives critics of the president more momentum as the election year approaches.
There is one simple, but essential, question to be asked relating to the memo that could prove even more helpful. Why was the memo leaked to the public? Was it an act of ill will on the part of a disgruntled government official bent on undermining his/her boss, or was the leak tacitly given the go ahead by Rumsfeld himself? It is quite possible that someone within the department had a political agenda and decided to promote it by publicizing the memo. However, when examining closely the current infighting in the administration, most agree that Rumsfeld might have had an agenda of his own to promote and leaking the memo was the easiest way to accomplish it. Rumsfeld has been demanding for a while now a complete reshuffling of the military and is pushing for a more mobile and smaller one that is also more technologically advanced. Also, a portion of the memo was dedicated to the need of devising a new institution that was specifically established to counter the war on terror. The idea has so far fallen on deaf ears and it appears unlikely that the administration will give it any significant consideration given that it is costlier than it might be worth.
The Department of Defense, headed by Rumsfeld, has also been the focus of criticism about the post-war planning in Iraq. Given the political expediency of a stable Iraq, Bush’s patience wore thin with Rumsfeld and his associates, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, who were mostly in charge of the plans for the campaign in Iraq and its post-war stabilization process. In response to repeated criticism on the slow recovery of Iraq, Bush redirected most of the responsibility for the planning of Iraq to National Security Adviser, Condoleeza Rice, thus stripping Rumsfeld of some of his clout with regards to the reconstruction of Iraq and indirectly censuring him for the poor handling of the post-war planning. Against such a background, then, it is not surprising that a memo noting lack of progress on the war on terror and undermining some of the administration’s claims regarding the war in Iraq, found its way on the front pages of the national newspapers.
For all its worth, Rumsfeld justified the memo as simply a reality check, a worst-case scenario, designed to alert those within the Department of Defense of alternative views. Nevertheless, the silver lining of the memo remains, this administration is not as confident and tight-lipped as it once was. Or in the words of Sen. Joseph Byden, Del-D, “reality has collided with ideology here.”
Medlir Mema is a senior majoring in political science. Comments can be sent to medlirm@cc.usu.edu.